Welcome to the nonprofits. In our third segment this week, we look at a conservative activist and as financial crusade against woke companies. Conservative activist Robbie Starbuck recently launched a boycott against Harley Davidson, criticizing the company for supporting LGBTQ plus initiatives and other woke causes. Starbuck, who previously targeted companies like Tractor Supply and John Deere for similar reasons, claims his efforts aim to remove politics from corporate America.
His campaigns have resonated with some conservative audiences, but they've also sparked backlash, particularly from those who see his actions as divisive and harmful. While Starbuck argues that businesses should stay neutral on social issues, critics argue that diversity and inclusion are crucial for modern company's success. This story is from USA Today by Jessica Gwinn on August second, twenty twenty four, and Aaron, I would like to go to
you first on this one. So, Aaron, political activism, much like the atheist activism we practice, depends on voices of the activists to prompt change. What are the voices telling you with this story?
Well, it's something that this guy's got the loudest voice, and the loudest voice is the voice that wins. Unfortunately, the it's not the fairest voice, it's not the most just voice, it's not the it's just it's the loudest. Whoever's gonna make the most noise, make the biggest ruckus.
That's usually who people listen to. And and unfortunately, there's I don't see a lot of voices out there countering this, this gentleman's message, you know, and I don't see people out there working to shut him down and make sure that the loudest voice is the fairest voice, is the voice that wants diversity and wants equality. And you know, these people that are working.
Harder, and they work hard, and we need to work we need work harder. And I don't.
Understand where this is what he has what's his beef? Right, It's it's why does he care what these companies are doing? What's what's And for some reason, I think it's because that for white men are seem to be losing, they seem to be losing their their their power in our country and our culture. And I believe he's scared of that. And you know, he's not the only voice, he's not the only person out there who is decrying these uh
rallying against diversity in equity. And it's almost like these guys also kind of have maybe have a deep understand of how economic systems have worked historically, that economic systems really rely on a base.
Of underpaid or not paid at all worker class that they can take advantage of any time and use that underpaid, unpaid worker class to make them enrich themselves. And that's really what is going on here, is he doesn't he doesn't want to see himself lose power, and he doesn't want to see uh and he loses he loses power by having a more diverse and equitable workforce.
So you're saying that there's some kind of well, there's a there's a quiet part, right you say, the quiet part quiet and the loud part loud, and so that there's some kind of well known arterial theial motive going on here.
The quiet part is you want really underpaid workers so that you can enrich yourself. That's that's the quiet part, right. But look look at the rate.
Of increase of salaries and a in the United States, and it has been flat.
For a long time flat for the workers.
For workers, yeah, workers are not keep it keeping up with inflation. Workers are making.
Less what they have and minimum wage is not minimum wage and most of the country has not gone up for a very long time.
All right, Thanks Aaron. Let's jump over to Jimmy here. Jimmy Starbuck is a political activist and he couches his opinions in a political context. Can you comment on some of the political motivations and implications of his efforts?
Well, sure, I think there is definitely some credibility to what Aaron's saying as far as white men feeling like they've lost power in this country, which obviously is ridiculous. I mean, they still overwhelmingly hold a majority, especially in government. When we look at elected officials in our country, they're overwhelmingly white men. So this idea that white men are
losing power is a little bit crazy to me. I think that the election of Barack Obama really angered a lot of would be biggots who were hiding kind of in the tall grass, and they expose themselves once a person or once we saw this kind of far right push that came after Barack Obama, and so I think a lot of people felt emboldened to kind of speak up. The thing is, though, and let me get to the point, I don't know what being a conservative and bigotry have
to do with each other. So unfortunately in this country we've seen bigotry become intertwined with conservative politics. But conservatism is not something that really needs to be enmeshed in bigotry. Conservatism, traditionally speaking is just, and you can be somebody who advocates for small government and still not be a bigot. For some reason, though we see those things being mutually exclusive, and so to be a conservative doesn't mean you need
to speak out against dei policies. In fact, if you're a conservative, you should recognize that the smaller the government and the more disproportionate your population is by ethnicity, that the smaller population, that smaller ethnicity is probably going to be disparaged in some way. Our history tells us that. It tells us that. So, you know, conservatives like to take the stance that they are excuse me, representative of
what the founders intended, right. They take a hard, hard line approach or a strict constructionist view of the constitution, where everybody gets equal rights. Well, if you play this conservative card and you advocate for small government, not every
everybody's going to have equal rights. And so it might even make sense to be a conservative and advocate from the government not being involved in your affairs as a business owner, and also recognizing that maybe we need some safeguards to ensure everybody's treated equally and has the equal opportunities. And so that's my point there.
You know, Jimmy, both you and Aaron mentioned that, you know, there doesn't have to be a necessary connection between conservativism and bigotry, right, and so it seems like why, you know, why, why does it? At least it seems to us on a show like this, it's it seems to us that that particular mindset, the conservative mindset, seems to be drawn
to that type of belief and interaction. And I know it seems like I bring up this this research too often, too often on the nonprofits, But there was a there was a study done that shows that there is a strong the difference, the biggest difference between a conservative mindset and a liberal mindset is authoritarianism. And that and it's not because it's not because the conservative mindset encourages authoritarianism.
It's the other way around. And so it's it's rather than dividing people by are you conservative or liberal, you can divide them by are you are you pro authoritarianism or are you against it? And then the group that is pro authoritarianism is way more likely to be conservative politically, is way more likely to be conservative religiously, is way more concerned about things like purity and loyalty and that
kind of thing. And so I think I think there is kind of a roundabout tie from the from the conservative mindset to this idea of bigotry through that conduit of authoritarianism and purity.
But I would I would say that that is unique to the United States, though, because if you look at another country like Hungary, for example, they don't have a minority African American population that's going to be disparaged the more conservative they are, right, So conservatism means something different
in a country like that than it does here. So when you get that kind of population in a country that's got disproportionate groups, you're going to see disproportionate a disproportionate splitting of the resources and splitting of the gains of that society between those groups because one is essentially going to control the other, and being conservative means that that group gets to be more authoritarian over the rest of them. So I don't know. I hope that makes make sense.
Oh no, yeah, that was a thanks for thanks for adding that. I'm glad you did. I want to jump over to Eli here real quick. So Eli, to you and I, this seems like a ridiculous overreaction, of course on on Starbucks part. What could prompt such a strong reaction from him?
Well, I think it is just like Jimmy said, and it's this this power that white men have, the idea that they're losing and also don't necessarily realize that they have.
At the same time, I think the last time you and I Scott talked about the white standardism and how a lot of you know, white people will have this idea that like, just the way that my life is is just a standard way, and that's like most people feel that way and just don't recognize that different people have different perspectives unless and I think that's probably true for the majority perspective, because we are not living in somebody else's perspective. So Robbie Starbuck says in his rent.
He says, just get rid of social issues and a
divisive causs and that's such a violently unaware statement. And I think because I think what makes it so divisive is this idea that the way that it always has been is the way that it should continue to be, because that's the way where I was basically allowed to treat other people however I wanted, and I could like benefit the most, and I liked it that way, and that made me the most comfortable, and I went that back, and it's it's not you know, go and these whole
like the Pride flags in the tractor supply company store, those don't affect Robbie Starbuck. The DEI programs that any of these companies use, they don't affect Robbie Starbuck negatively in any way. He just wants to be hateful and get it back to the way he's used to having it because that's what he likes. It's just ignorance.
Yeah, you mentioned that that phrase white standardism, and I remember when we talked. That came up in a story we covered on the nonprofits a few weeks ago, and the context was it was an African American woman was talking about how history, and I think it was Arizona, maybe New Mexico had been whitewashed. And she said, you might not be a white supremacist, but you're a white standardist. And what that means is that you think of being white as like the default, as the as the standard,
and anything else's deviations from from being white. And so I wonder if that I mean to me that this story here just kind of reeks of that of that white standards and that we were talking about before. Okay, so let's jump back over to Aaron here. Aaron, you you kind of painted a dark picture of capitalism earlier. What changes could we make to the way that we examine capitalism or change capitalism itself? What what can we do that can lighten up this dark picture a little bit?
Well, let me read something from you for you. I don't think, yeah, I don't think. I don't think this gets red and talked about enough. Okay, most of us, we'll find this familiar. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general warfare, welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pasterity, do our dain and establish this
Constitution of the United States of America. I love the Preamble to the Constitution because it tells us exactly why the Constitution exists and why our government exists. It basically exists to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. If you look in this country, let's say reincarnation is a real thing, and that well, we're all
going to get reincarnated. Look around this country and if somebody asks you, well, who, what kind of a person, with what kind of a nationality or race, or sexuality, gender would you like to be born as.
In this country? And if the answer is I don't care, then we have some work to do. And you know what I think, I don't think people can answer it, well, it doesn't matter, right, I think it does matter how you're born and who you're born in this country. And that's a shame. That means that there are groups that don't have and there are groups that have. And it's the purpose of our government to make sure that everybody has secured the blessings of liberty for themselves, regardless of
their race, their nationality, their sexuality, or their gender. And I think our government needs to step up and it needs to help people have better wages. It needs to help people have medical bills that don't crush them. Is to help people get educated, to provide education for people
so they have opportunities to improve their lives. So I think I think to solve this problem, it requires government intervention, It requires government regulation and to help improve and secure the blessings of liberty for everybody in this country, regardless of how you were who you were born as.
Yeah, I mean you mentioned that what was that the veil of ignorance morality?
Is that?
I think it was John Wrawles that that said that. Yeah, and yeah, that's a really good perspective to have. You know, if if you want to judge the fairness or judge the judge's system, just imagine if you don't get to pick what role you're going to play in an organization
or in that system or whatever. And you know, that really gets people thinking about other people because you don't know if you're going to be the other people or if they're going to be the other people, right, And so if you don't know that, then uh, if you're if you're making decisions based on position, then that's taking advantage of the fact that you're in that position. That's
exercising that privilege. And and so I and I also appreciate that you read us the preamble to the Constitution there. I agree. I think that's uh. I think we should read that a little more often. But anyway, I digress a little bit here. I Uh, let's jump down to uh to Eli here, Eli, So we talked about maybe there's racial motivations, maybe there's some political motivations. It seems like there's some kind of maybe kind of deeper urge pushing Starbucks here into doing these kind of things. What
do you think about that? So what he.
Says here, like I said before, like this is all just about hate, Like I want to hate these people, and you're making it uncomfortable for me to do that. And he says at one point or does a quote from an article that says, if you give people the inform I am paraphrasing, but it says, if you give people the information, especially if you are doing it in a way that is focused at the right demographics and at the right customer base, then they are going to
make wise choices. And what he means by that is, if you manipulate people, you can get them to do what you want. And I guess I shouldn't say that's what he means. I shouldn't, you know, put intent to it. But that's how I read that. That's how it feels, just coming from like the like the what he's been doing, like these campaigns that he's on that he finds to be so important that like, I haven't really made any change to the way that these companies do business other
than like these particular products aren't on display anymore. It really just seems like the only reason for it is, Hey, the purpose of an ad campaign is to like draw in customers, and if if Harley Davidson wants to draw in customers that are of the LGBTQIA community, which I'm sure that they do, because like money doesn't have sex, so there's no wrong way, Like there's no wrong money,
so I'm sure they want that money. There was in the article it said that there is one point four trillion dollars of purchasing power in the USA among the LGBTQIA community. So I know that Harley Davidson wants that money. So if they want to show that community that they are welcoming and inclusive to them, they need to include that community and welcome that community in their ad campaigns.
This is one plus one. And like Robbie Starbuck's upsaid about it, the UFC fighter Sean Strickland, who was mentioned in the article saying that this is betrayal by Harley Davidson. That is treachery. And it seems to me that.
If that's not a word of privilege right there, right exactly, if acknowledging that people that are different from you exist, like that's not betrayal, that's like snowflake narcissism.
Yes, I'm calling calling Jean Strickland out because that just seems really fragile to me. To feel like you're being betrayed. If your image, if it is so important to your image to reject other people as people, then your image is fragile.
Yeah, no shit, But you point out that. So in order to be able to apply that pressure, then he must be somewhat successful. Jimmy, let's jump down to you here. We've seen that's Arbuck has been successful in the past with tractor supply and with John Deere. They basically all but caved in to his demands. And now Harley Davidson is you know, on the edge or figuring out what to do here? What can these companies do other than what ELI has been suggesting, you know, just embracing it
and going with it. Is there anything that they could do to resist that kind of business pressure?
Well, I think that based off my sheer observation and not on any data. So this is dangerous, but I'm gonna I'm gonna go down this road anyway. And based off the fact that I have lived in New York and Texas and Florida, I would probably venture to say that Tractor Supply and John Deere do not have a large customer base or employment force that represents anybody other
than the kind of conservative population. Right. Maybe there might be some onesie tuosies, but generally speaking, I don't think that they, you know, John Deere or Tractor Supplier in the middle of New York City and doing a whole lot of business. Right, I haven't seen one in Times Square recently. These are in the rural areas where things like that are common and where a mindset that is anti woke, if you will, is more common as well.
Why not test this theory? Why not open up a business and do some business in the sectors of society that you have no connection with, and see how fruitful it is. I would agree that opening stores in urban liberal centers and going completely woke, hiring transgender people, hiring people that don't look like your neighbors for a twenty mile radius, you know, that's an experiment that I would
love to see by some of these big organizations. I don't think that that Harley Davidson has fallen yet, because Harley Davidson is not quite as I think, conservatively aligned or rurally aligned if you can even use those words like that that way as the other companies that we've
talked about. Right, So, just like Starbucks said, ironically not related to the corporation Starbucks by any means, but Starbuck himself had said, Look, I understand that Starbucks is a I don't know what he called it, like a liberal shit show or something like that. Whatever he goes, I completely I completely accept that that's who they are, and I go in and I get my coffee anyway, Right, Okay,
so then what what is the problem? You must see the financial benefit and what is the problem with your your companies that you that you love so much getting a financial benefit as well, but also providing a safe and inclusive work environment for people who might want to work there, who might want to take on that company's mission and get a paycheck and be part of the team. What's wrong with that?
Right?
I go for it?
So you're saying not not only not only embracing the that portion of that what was it ELI one point four billion? Was that brillion? One point four trillion dollars?
Okay?
So I was off by three factors of ten there one point for trillion dollars. They want to get that rather than just targeting for that, rather than just creating an interaction or a company that is friendly to consumers. Jimmy, you're saying that they should incorporate that into their entire corporate identity, right, that they should be embracing at from the inside out. Almost.
Well, I think they should just recognize the benefit and recognize the fairness. I don't think that they need to rebrand themselves. I just think that they don't need to be exclusive or what's the word discriminatory?
Right? Yeah? Yeah, I don't think that that would require any kind of rebranding either, just to come out and say we recognize that there are other human beings. It seems that seems like a pretty basic thing to say. But I have one last question for all three of you, and I'm going to ask for a quick, short answer from each of the three of you. Clearly that we're talking about one guy here, Robbie Starbuck, and he's made
kind of a big splash. So what does that tell us about the power of one person's voice and does that impact our perceptions of our own voices as we promote the ACA's position of promoting atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, et cetera. What does that tell us about the ability of one person to make a difference. We'll go to Aaron first.
We all can make a difference.
We all can be that voice, that loud voice that affects change in the world. We just have to take the energy and the time to do.
It, all right, Eli, The reason that Robbie Starbick was successful is because those companies recognize the platform that he has and the influence that he has. And it's just so it's just like you said it, like you use the platform, the influence you have to make the changes that you want to see. He wanted to see it, and he got it done, and you know I haven't done anything about it.
All right, Jimmy last word here? What does what does Robbie Starbuck tell us about the power of the voice?
Well, I think that he is showing us that an excellent communicator can play all the fears of people and have a negative outcome. Rather than use his voice for good, I think that he's using it for bad. And you know what, he's benefiting from it. We are talking about him right now. People are writing about him and following him because he makes a case so effectively even though he's wrong.
Mm hmm. Okay, And that's the power of the voice. You've heard our voices on this